The NCAA had "regular and substantive" involvement with former FBI Director Louis Freeh's investigation into Penn State's handling of the Jerry Sandusky scandal, according to court documents filed Wednesday.

A motion filed in state Sen. Jake Corman's lawsuit against the NCAA said Freeh and the NCAA collaborated on an investigation that provided the basis for the 2012 sanctions against the Penn State football team. The NCAA and Freeh had regular contact from the start of the investigation in November 2011, conducted meetings in State College and held scheduled conference calls that included lawyers from the Big Ten, the documents show.

Further, the motion states, the NCAA and Freeh's group held a December 2011 conference call concerning how the NCAA's enforcement staff "historically has examined issues involving institutional control and ethical conduct."

Penn State's board of trustees hired Freeh's group to perform an "independent, full and complete" investigation into Penn State's handling of allegations of child sexual abuse against Sandusky, a former assistant coach at Penn State.

ESPN first reported the filings. In an interview with ESPN, Corman said that Freeh "went way past his mandate" and was "an enforcement person for the NCAA."

"It's almost like the NCAA hired him to do their enforcement investigation on Penn State," Corman, R-Centre, told ESPN. "At a minimum, it is inappropriate. At a maximum, these were two parties working together to get an outcome that was predetermined."

Penn State disputed that allegation, issuing a statement saying that the NCAA and Big Ten's monitoring of the investigation has been public for almost three years.

"While the NCAA may have made suggestions to the Freeh Group with respect to its investigation, the scope of the Freeh investigation was established by the Penn State board of trustees, as set forth in the Freeh engagement letter, not by the NCAA," Penn State said.

Corman and state Treasurer Robert McCord revealed the documents as part of their lawsuit initially intended to keep Penn State's $60 million fine in Pennsylvania. The suit later became a test of the Consent Decree that Penn State signed in 2012 agreeing to the sanctions, which included scholarship reductions and a bowl ban.

According to the motion, the NCAA asserted privilege to prevent Corman and McCord's inquiry into the NCAA's "extensive and substantive contacts with the Freeh Group." NCAA lawyer Donald Remy called Freeh's investigation "entirely independent of the NCAA," according to the motion.

Freeh's group was to serve under the "sole discretion" of the Penn State board of trustees, according to the terms of engagement letter signed by both parties. Penn State has paid Freeh's group more than $8.1 million, according to university figures.

Among the emails attached to Wednesday's motion was one from Jonathan Barrett, who acts as outside counsel for the Big Ten. Barrett wrote to a member of Freeh's group asking to participate in the investigation, "similar to the role that the NCAA is taking."

Barrett also wrote that he spoke with Remy, who mentioned the NCAA's "on the ground" investigation in collaboration with Freeh.

The documents include a list of 32 questions that the NCAA recommends Freeh's group ask during its investigation as well as a list of terms to search in Penn State documents from 1998-2002. Among the terms the NCAA suggested were "Sandusky," "whistle-blower," "cash cow," "power coach," "CYA," "blind end" and "retaliation."

"The university's preliminary review of the NCAA's proposed questions suggests that there are many proposed questions that are not addressed in the final July 12, 2012, [Freeh] report," Penn State said in its statement.

In his report, Freeh wrote that his group operated with "total independence" and that no party "interfered with, or attempted to influence" its findings.

In announcing the 2012 Penn State football sanctions, the NCAA praised Penn State for commissioning the Freeh report and said any traditional NCAA investigation would be "duplicative and unnecessary."

The release Wednesday of emails followed last week's release of other emails that suggested NCAA officials intended to "bluff" Penn State into accepting sanctions by suggesting it faced harsher penalties for not doing so.

In a later filing that included depositions from two NCAA officials, emails suggested that the NCAA pursued sanctions as a public-relations measure. In one email to lawyer Gene Marsh, who represented Penn State, Shepard Cooper, director of the NCAA Committees on Infractions, said the NCAA was "image-conscious."

"The new ncaa leadership is extremely image conscience [sic] and if they conclude that pursuing allegations against PSU would enhance the Association's standing with the public, then an infractions case could follow," Cooper wrote. "I know that [NCAA President] Mark Emmert has made statements to the press indicating that he thinks it could fall into some sort of [lack of institutional control] case. 'Shooting road kill' is an apt analogy."

Marsh responded, "I know how they think there now [at the NCAA], but they should leave this one alone."